Yesterday, Arkansas' Mike Ross, an influential Blue Dog Democrat, stated that he was opposed to a public option in the Democrats' health care reform package. "An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option, and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well," Ross asserted in a letter to his constituents.
Ross may well have gotten a significant number of letters and e-mails against the public option. He may have hosted a town hall forum before an audience who was skeptical of such a provision. But if Ross had actually polled his district, it's unlikely he would have found overwhelming opposition to the public option. Instead, he might even have found a that a plurality or majority of his constituents supported the public plan.
Ross's district itself, the Arkansas 4th, has not been polled publicly. But some others like it have been -- and have usually revealed decent levels of support for the public option. In particular, Research 2000, via Daily Kos, has now surveyed the public option in Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and the Tennessee 5th Congressional District occupied by fellow Blue Dog Jim Cooper. Research 2000 also conducted a nationwide poll on the public option. These six polls reveal a strong relationship between support for the public option and support for Barack Obama last November:
This would not appear to be good news for the public option in Ross's district, which gave Barack Obama just 39 percent of its vote. However, there also appears to be a secondary relationship between support for the public option and the poverty rate. Kentucky and Nebraska, for instance, each gave Barack Obama 41 percent of their vote. But in Kentucky, the public option is supported (barely) at 46-45, whereas in Nebraska it's opposed 39-47. What's the difference? Kentucky is much poorer than Nebraska -- 17.0 percent of its residents are impoverished, versus 11.5 percent in the Cornhusker state. Likewise, Nevada gave Barack Obama 55 percent of its vote, whereas Cooper's TN-5 gave him 56. But in Nevada, the public option is supported 52-40, whereas in TN-5, the margin is much larger: 61-28 in favor. TN-5's poverty rate is about 50 percent higher than Nevada's.
While Arkansas-4 does not have a lot of Obama voters, it does have a lot of people in poverty: 20.5 percent of its population, which ranks it 50th out of the 435 Congressional Districts. It is basically like an exaggerated version of Kentucky where, according to the Research 2000 poll, 46 percent support the public option and 45 percent oppose it. That the public option is "overwhelmingly" unpopular in such a district is unlikely.
We can systematize these results by means of a regression analysis that accounts for the Obama vote share and the poverty level in each district. (Technically, we'll be using a logistic regession, treating each of the voters included in one of these surveys as a separate data point.) This analysis finds that support for the public option nationwide is about 55 percent, against 36 percent opposed, similar results to what I believe to be the most reliable polls on the subject.
What's more interesting, though, is where we project the public option in individual districts. We find that:
-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 291 of the 435 Congressional Districts nationwide, or almost exactly two-thirds.
-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 235 of 257 Democratic-held districts.
-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 34 of 52 Blue Dog - held districts, and has overall popularity of 51 percent in these districts versus 39 percent opposed.
Obviously, there is a margin of error inherent to this analysis when applied to any individual district. The polls that inform this analysis themselves have a margin of error, and there is an additional layer of error introduced by the statistical process that we apply to the data. But in Ross's district, for what it's worth, the projected numbers are 49 percent in favor of a public option and 41 percent opposed.
The districts represented in blue in the map below are those where we'd project the public option to have plurality support if a poll were conducted there; those in red are where we expect a plurality to oppose it:
The raw projections for all 435 districts can be found below. Blue Dog Democrats are indicated by a lower-case 'd' and a lighter shade of blue.
9.09.2009
Analysis: Public Option Is Likely Popular in Most Blue Dog Districts
@ 5:26 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
136 comments
informative and concise, can you make it fit on a poster board so idiots in congress can understand?
As you say Obama got 39% of the vote in Ross's district as Arkansas was one of the few states Kerry outperformed Obama. It is what it is in the deep South as they continue to fight the Civil War down there.
Fixednoise ratings is highly skewed to the South were old and young white guys cling to their guns, religion and faux news.
Suspect the Dems are doomed in AR and OK another state Kerry outperformed Obama, but hey, as previously mentioned the Reps can have AR and OK, no need to be greedy.
Good analysis. But the reason why the public option, even the watered down option in the House, is in trouble, has little to do with public support, for or against it.
It has everything to do with the health insurance lobby, and how much money they have given to candidates on both sides of the aisle.
The bottom line is, progressives want a PO (even the watered down House version), so they will have something to build on for the future. The health insurance industry does not want a PO, for the same reason.
The health insurance industry is calling in ALL its markers, and giving even MORE millions to democrats and republicans, right now, to kill the PO.
And its working. So far.
It's no surprise that the higher the poverty rate, the higher the support for a public option. Poor people have been conditioned by Democrats for generations to depend on government. Democrats need to keep people in poverty and grow the welfare state because it's their strongest voting block.
Once people become dependant on government, government has them under their control for a lifetime. It becomes very difficult to ever escape. The African American community serves as a perfect example.
Looks like the link is up at digg, so folks should digg it up:
Digg link.
@GROG:
And how, precisely, does providing insurance put somebody "under the control" of government?
If providing insurance provides some level of control over people, then the corporations that provide insurance now are in control of us.
Since I need insurance either way, I'd rather be under the control of government employees than private insurance; at least in the government run option there is nobody getting a bigger bonus by letting me suffer or die.
But I disagree with your whole premise. I also rely on the government to provide police protection, rely on the government to provide roads and freeways, rely on the government to inspect the food I eat and planes I ride in, rely on the government to train and pay the military that protects the country. And yet I don't see that this "controls" me to any extraordinary extent, other than preventing me from breaking the law. So how, precisely, would relying on the government to provide insurance control me?
Please, use Medicare, the government run single payer insurance for the elderly (which they love), as your example of how the elderly are now "controlled" by the government.
GROG is right.
Incrementalism towards government-run health care via the Trojan Horse "Public Option" will ultimately mean less choice, less freedom for Americans.
These aren't just my sentiments but the now-suppressed sentiments of such Democratic Party luminaries as Rahm Emmanuel, Ezra Klein, Bernie Frank, etc.
Single Payer is the ultimate goal.
Tony C, you mean to tell us that a single payer system is not "government control"? That's ludicrous.
All of this conjecture, however, is pointless. Obama blew health care reform big time, regardless of what happens tonight during his speech.
Intrade is at like 23% for passage of a bill before 12/31/09.
I think it would be hilarious if the Democrats somehow cram through a "health care" bill that does NOT include a so supposed cost-restraining "public option" but DOES include an individual mandate with fines of up to $3,800 per individual for failing to buy health care insurance.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090908/D9AJCL500.html
Talk about a perfect storm of Republican resurgence.
I could envision a public uproar of such historic levels that even previously uber-pro Democrat voters and constituency groups would rebel against the Washington elites.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota used premium payments to fund $15 million in employee bonuses, cover $35,000 for a retirement party and pay for other questionable expenses, according to a state audit released Tuesday.
..
Company officials said Tuesday that changes were already being made when Hamm ordered the audit in March, following criticism of a sales managers' trip to the Grand Cayman Islands that cost $238,000. The company's chief executive at the time, Mike Unhjem, was fired later that month.
..
Hamm said that of the $418 million in the company's administrative expenses over the past five years, the audit found "millions and millions of dollars in excessive expenses."
The report said that premium payments funded nearly $15 million in employee bonuses that were almost assured regardless of performance, a $3.5 million investment in a hotel in Fargo and sales reward trips to resorts totaling $1.2 million.
----------------
And yes, BCBS of North Dakota would have qualified as a "non-profit co-op" under the Senate Finance Committee's plan.
@Walker:
you mean to tell us that a single payer system is not "government control"? That's ludicrous.
Apparently you cannot read; since Grog's assertion is that "Once people become dependant [sic] on government, government has them under their control for a lifetime."
Government controlled health insurance is not government controlling people. Government currently controls all health insurance for the elderly (or 99.999% of it), and that does not give them any kind of control over those people.
Grog's assertion is that dependency on the government for a service somehow puts government in control of us; yet we depend on city, state and federal government for myriad services (which I have already detailed) and somehow, magically, this dependency has not produced any noticeable level of any of us being "under the control" of government.
More importantly for Blue Dogs, is how popular the idea is with people who might actually vote for them.
My guess is that if you subtract off the 30-40% of those who wouldn't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, the public option has overwhelming support among the remaining population.
@Wayward Son:
Yeah, I have worked on computer systems for two national non-profit organizations that afforded me (legal) access to all internal books. As it turns out, massive salaries, bonuses, perks, lavish offices in high rise buildings, air travel to exotic destinations for weeks on end in five star hotels, $200/plate dinners with $400 bottle wines with celebrity endorsers, catered parties in Paris with limousine service from the airport: These are all "business expenses."
Blood banks, non-profit hospitals, churches and many (perhaps most) charity organizations are just scams run by con men, stuffing their pockets with money donated by well-meaning citizens. Seriously, I have seen breathtaking corruption and abuse of funds at two major national charities and it ain't pretty, childrens.
Polling a misleading Dem talking point framed in the conservative terms of competition hardly indicates support for the realities of the Obamacare legislation or addresses the complaints about that legislation by the Blue Dogs' constituents.
Team Obama has stated that they are not offering any new legislation tonight, but will rather have Obama simply offer a repackaging of his health care pitch. Thus, Kos polling might pass the laugh test if it asked:
Do you support a health insurance law that will outlaw your present insurance within a year and compel you or your employer to buy a government approved health insurance plan or levy a tax penalty against you?
Do you support the creation of a government health insurance plan subsidized by your taxes and which will cut the compensation your doctor will receive for treating you?
Are you willing to pay higher taxes to pay for the government to insure those without health insurance?
When the reality of Obamacare is presented in a poll, does anyone really think it will muster more than 20% support in a Red district represented by a Blue Dog Dem?
Get real.
@Tony C:
That's what sites like http://www.charitynavigator.org/ are for... I always look up charities there before I donate anywhere.
@BDP:
Yes, to all three. Of course, imposing a new law on a health insurance agency is hardly "outlawing my present health insurance," it is government's job to address egregious inequalities in our systems.
We also "outlaw" cyanide in our food and fake claims for medicine, apparently by your lights the government is overstepping its bounds with the FDA.
So there will be no government outlawing of private insurance, there will be new laws protecting consumers and I am all for that.
As for taxes, absolutely. Private insurance on average takes 30% of revenues to pay for "overhead," including salaries, bonuses, offices, and profits for owners. Medicare uses 4% of revenues (which are less per person insured). So by using taxes to pay for insurance we get a 26% discount, possibly as high as 35% discount; and yes, I'd like to save the money.
So let's poll that: Would you like a government single payer system that reduced your entire health insurance expenses by 1/3 and provided universal coverage?
Hm, let's do it.
Obama needs to nail his speech tonight to get support north of 60% nationally.
Walker is correct. This will be a disaster for Dems next election if insurance is taxed without a PO. I may not vote for them myself if they do that.
I see Tony C. - the egomaniac - is at it again...spewing filth and making misleading arguments. Comparing government interference in the administration of health care and health insurance to police protection and the FDA is ludicrous and a logical fallacy.
Anyway, y'all leave the people of Arkansas-4 alone. That's my home turf, and I can already tell you that Nate is way off base in his analysis, as are some of you guys' comments.
With all the caveats in mind, if there is anything to this analysis then the Democrats need to do a better job of targeting Republican representatives for votes or if not their votes then for their defeat in 2010. It appeared to me (I didn't actually count/maybe someone else will) that there were a comparable number of Republicans in districts supporting the public option as Democrats in districts opposed. If anything I think it looked like there were more of those Republicans than Democrats in the opposite situation.
@Mule:
As usual, Mule, you shout your angry assertions without any evidence or logic to them.
The FDA protects consumers. Laws restricting the practices of insurance companies, such as dropping people that have made claims or developed new conditions because they are no longer profitable, will also protect consumers that think they have health insurance when they really don't.
So once, again, I know you can't help yourself, so let's dance: Where is your logic saying these are entirely different scenarios?
Bart DePalma - "Do you support a health insurance law that will outlaw your present insurance within a year and compel you or your employer to buy a government approved health insurance plan or levy a tax penalty against you?"
This is a complete and total fabrication. Should an attorney really be lying like that? Would prospective clients approve of your lies? Let Bart know, give him a call at his office at (719) 687-7878 or send him an email at depalmalaw@aol.com. Let local businesses know that we won't take their lies about health care reform anymore!
The FDA protects consumers. Laws restricting the practices of insurance companies, such as dropping people that have made claims or developed new conditions because they are no longer profitable, will also protect consumers that think they have health insurance when they really don't.
Okay, now you're moving the goalposts and changing the argument around. If it's that one specific point you are worried about - people getting dropped when they thought they were covered and having government regulations protect them from that - then I'm in total agreement with you. Same with the FDA.
What I'm against is a level of government interference that dirupts the market, not something that protects consumers from getting screwed.
The government making sure people are not dropped from coverage when they're supposed to be or making sure those that the "uninsurable" - those that are "high risk" and/or have pre-existing conditions - have some level of coverage or safety net from a catastrophic illness is perfectly fine and I'm all for that. The same with the FDA doing what they can to keep cyanide, E. coli, and rat pills out of our food.
What I'm opposed to is the government overstepping its bounds and doing more "interfering" and "imposing" rather than "protecting" and "regulating."
The difference between us here is a shade of gray on the surface, but is contrasted like night and day when you take a step back.
While we both agree that the government has an important role to regulate and protect and make sure the rules of the game are fairly implemented, you believe that enhancing their role in everything only makes them better at "regulating" and "protecting" and playing referee. I, on the other hand, do not. I believe that increasing the role of government beyond protecting/serving/regulating means there will be more undue restrictions, impositions, etc. that cause more harm than good.
Nate,
Beautiful use of logistic regression, as always.
I hope someone at the White House sees this, verifies that it closely tracks internal polling, and then uses that to convince some fence-sitters that they're ultimately better off voting for it. (Obviously, those who are already completely set in their decision won't be moved, but those who are genuinely undecided could use this sort of information to get past the screaming-at-town-halls noise machine and see some real information.)
egarpin. n. A straight pin used by Dr. Frankenstein's assistant in hump-related medical procedures.
This is very instructive, Nate, as a "guestimate" based on observable data.
The big question, of course, is what is the unobservable true district opinion -- an opinion not only measured at the district level but one that's assessed through a series of questions focusing on alternatives, and on the citizen's understanding of what the public option really means.
I have a hunch that most members of Congress know the answer to the above but some do not. But more importantly, because it's likely that only in a very few districts has such polling been published (perhaps more in larger urban districts where local news media sponsor polls), most members of Congress are not likely to feel a lot of pressure "from the people" in their district.
And so most members of Congress will maintain a plausible deniability about what their constituents really preferred.
Thus, it will come down to what they themselves prefer, and what they view as in their own short run political interests (maybe in some cases even in the long run interests of their constituents?).
And it's THAT calculation by the members that Obama's speech is all about. If he mobilizes for a public option rightly framed, he may be able to move them. But it will take grass roots support from progressives and labor to bring this about -- the type of grass roots support that Obama mustered in the primaries and the general election.
Can he do that? Has the train already left the station, and is it heading over a chasm in which the bridge is failing?
What I'm against is a level of government interference that dirupts the market
Apparently even when the "market" is fubar?
There are things that the "invisible hand" do well and some places where it is very ill suited. This situation is the later of the two.
Nate:
Beautiful, just beautiful!
Dave Scott,D- GA 13 is a Blue Dog. Small correction there.
I live in GA-9--which has the distinction of polling with only 22% in favor of the health option (the lowest in the nation's districts).
Apparently even when the "market" is fubar?
No, I'm very much in favor of reform. I just want to be cautious regarding what and how much the government is allowed to dictate and mandate in all of this once the dust settles. Because there's nothing saying it can't get more fubared once this plan is set in motion. That's what some of us are trying to protect against. You think just because it's bad now, it can only get better. I'm of the opinion that it's bad and can get worse. I want to make sure it's something that will make things better.
There are things that the "invisible hand" do well and some places where it is very ill suited. This situation is the later of the two.
It's a little of both. The "invisible hand" hasn't been allowed to work here because of the lack of transparency and rule-dodging by the insurance industry and health care providers. It works best when there's a free and open flow of information to everybody. That hasn't been the case.
Before slamming the free market and invisible hand as not working, you actually have to establish the proper parameters for it to work. A bureaucratic nightmare with liars, cheaters, and thieves that don't share information is not the kind of environment an "invisible hand" can work in.
The "invisible hand" takes money from the middle and lower classes and gives it to the rich.
It buys members of Congress to support bailouts so that when the "no handers" run to excess they don't suffer too much.
The invisible hand was a wonderful 18th century concept. Just like magic!
I am a big believer in letting market forces do what they reasonably can. But they must be well regulated to minimize excesses and not reward illegality and exhorbitant "rent seeking" by those who control the financial levers.
@Mule:
There is a difference, I think it is that I recognize that one function of government is to implement collective action and circumvent the "tragedy of the commons."
The "free market" you envision doesn't work in police protection, road building, military action or in a justice system, and as a people we recognize this. We don't want these functions done at a profit because we do want equal protection and equal service, and we don't want the people necessary to implement these functions deciding what to do based on what makes them the most money.
The same logic applies to health care and health insurance; I don't want somebody deciding whether to deny me coverage based on how that will affect their next bonus. It is a direct conflict of interest between their interests and my health care.
Now I am fully behind a free market of competing vendors and consumer choice in things where consumers can take the time to choose products, or choose to do without products. Televisions, phones, entertainment, furniture, cars, whatever. Health care is not like any of those things. I consulted for a year with a large non-profit hospital chain, and 95% of the patients were there under involuntary circumstances. While suffering a heart attack or seizure, one does not have time to shop for a good value in a hospital; one takes the $1000 ambulance ride to the nearest hospital and hopes to live.
This isn't socialism, it is just common sense. There are some things the government should do because that is not only the cheapest way to do it (they are truly non-profit) but also the most equitable way to do it. It is also best for the economy; because when everybody is universally healthy and educated and safe, that will boost productivity enormously, bringing people into the economic system that are currently outsiders and drags on our economics, due to our incredibly expensive ad hoc universal health care system: Emergency Rooms. They are prohibited by law from denying care, and so instead of seeing a regular doctor, we spend ten times as much on the poor by providing their health care in an emergency setting that demands more tests, more doctors and more nurses.
Yeah. What Tony C said.
I love how you are able to juxtapose such polemic statements that are overtly skeptical and vaguely anti-free market capitalism such as:
The "invisible hand" takes money from the middle and lower classes and gives it to the rich.
and
The invisible hand was a wonderful 18th century concept. Just like magic!
with a relatively sound and reasonable statement like the one below:
I am a big believer in letting market forces do what they reasonably can. But they must be well regulated to minimize excesses and not reward illegality and exhorbitant "rent seeking" by those who control the financial levers.
You do realize that the two are not mutually exclusive, and I said as much in my post above. Regulations do have a very important purpose in making sure the rules of the game are played fairly and to prevent illegal and criminal behavior, and that has almost nothing to do with letting the "invisible hand" work. In fact, you need law and order for it to work.
The problem is that some of you are so reactionary that you improperly assign blame when you try and correct holes in the system.
Anyway, I get a kick out of reading so many of you guys' anti-economic comments that contain words like "voodoo" and "magic," knowing full well most of you are experts in something else entirely, if anything at all.
Unless the margin of error in the 46-45 Kentucky figure is <1%, it's not "barely supported," it's "tied."
I believe that increasing the role of government beyond protecting/serving/regulating means there will be more undue restrictions, impositions, etc. that cause more harm than good.
Fine. Do you have any examples of this whatsoever? Can you name any country with a public health care system who pays more than we do? Can you name any public health systems that cause more harm than good?
This is really the fundamental problem I have with the modern "conservative" - slavish devotion to ideological consistency at the expense of fact-based reasoning. It's like the whole gays-in-the-military thing - they continue to promulgate this laughable idea that it hurts unit cohesion, even while our troops serve alongside British and Canadian gays. It's nothing but doublethink.
You think just because it's bad now, it can only get better. I'm of the opinion that it's bad and can get worse. I want to make sure it's something that will make things better.
Oh no, I think it could get worse. If the "reforms" leave the current oligopoly largely in place while upping the coverage through of combination of mandates that are unfunded, partially funded, and nearly funded.
It's a little of both. The "invisible hand" hasn't been allowed to work here because of the lack of transparency and rule-dodging by the insurance industry and health care providers. It works best when there's a free and open flow of information to everybody. That hasn't been the case.
Before slamming the free market and invisible hand as not working, you actually have to establish the proper parameters for it to work. A bureaucratic nightmare with liars, cheaters, and thieves that don't share information is not the kind of environment an "invisible hand" can work in.
So how do you propose this "rule dodging" get addressed?
Without, you know, greatly increasing the "bureaucratic nightmare"? The fundemental problem is that current insurance industry has "liars and cheats" because the nature of the market is that it encourages that. A government can tweak the fundementals by putting rules in to change the balance of which is more profitable to do. But the current set of rules aren't robust enough to get the job done.
P.S. What is wrong with me pointing out that the "invisible hand" is doing a very poor job when you acknowledge that that is true?
The "free market" you envision doesn't work in police protection, road building, military action or in a justice system, and as a people we recognize this.
Yeah, no shit. And I'm not arguing for a private market to rule these functions. Dear God, it's like talking to a fence post, and I don't know how many times I have to say that.
But in all of those things you mentioned, there is no open buying and selling of a good or service like we're accustomed to in a traditional manner. You don't buy "justice." Nor do you sell it. You don't buy "police protection." Nor do you sell it. You might buy a taxi ride or a television, or you might sell furniture or a truckload of pumpkins. Those are the things are I'm talking about, and you need a private sector with a profit motive - albeit a regulated one to prevent extortion and criminal behavior - to get the most efficient and optimal outcomes.
The administration of police protection, the military, road building, and "justice" (whatever that means) are not even open-market concepts, so arguing that a "free market" doesn't work isn't even a logical train of thought. What is true, though, is for those industries to have a viable free market of suppliers - private and with a profit motive - to ensure top-notch innovation and the most efficient outcomes.
So, to get to my point, police protection isn't something to be measured in a "free market" context, but the equipment - guns, helmets, bulletproof vests, DNA computers, cars, etc. - they use should all be developed, designed and sold by companies, in competition with one another, that are driven by free market principles to guarantee the optimal technologies are being implemented with the greatest efficiences. The same goes for the other things.
So bringing that back to health care, I admit there are things that should be administed, fostered, and overseen by the government to make sure no one gets left out, denied care, or just outright screwed, but the things behind the scenes - the training of doctors, nurses, and specialists, the development of drugs and new medical technologies, etc. - should all be done by the free market.
And from my vantage point, some of what the government is trying to do will start encroaching on those things.
There were some serious problems with the Daily Kos poll in TN-5, however. For example, it showed DISAPPROVAL of Senator Alexander at somewhere in the 60s (it's been a while since I looked at it), when he carried Davidson County (the heart of the 5th district and the base of its Democratic electorate) with over 50% of the vote. Likewise, as Congressman Cooper pointed out in his statement regarding the poll, the President's approval rating was shown as being higher than his vote total in November. He's still popular in Nashville, but he hasn't gotten more so since the election/inauguration.
I think there was a serious over-sampling of progressives in that poll. I'd bet that Davidson Co. still supports public option on the whole, but not nearly as highly as you or the Kos poll would suggest.
This analysis is a good try - but it's basically "Garbage In Garbage Out"
As stated earlier, the premise of the question is flawed. It's claimed that in Kentucky the so-called "public option" is supported by a margin of 46-45. It isn't. Just on it's face the numbers are not believable. In order to believe the public option is supported by 46 percent of the KY population and opposed by 45 percent you have to believe that 91 percent even has a clue what "public option" means. 91 percent of Kentucky voters couldn't name the secretary of state (and I am not picking on KY. The same would hold for FL or NY or any other state). So how are we to believe that 91 percent has any CLUE whether or not the public option is good, bad or doesn't make a nickel's worth of difference?
As pointed out earlier by Bart, the devil is in the details. Honest liberals like Mark Penn and even a few on here admit that public option is just a backdoor to single payer. If that was included in the questioning there wouldn't be plurality support in KY - even in a DKos/R2000 poll. There wouldn't be plurality support anywhere outside of liberal minority enclaves where the vast majority are uninsured.
So again - a nice try. But you can't glean much from extrapolating from an originally flawed polling question.
The thing is, I suspect Nate knows this. There is a reason that the blue dogs are jumping ship. Do you honestly think Mike Ross wants to piss off the party leadership? Wouldn't it be easier for him to get DCCC money if he didn't rock the boat? He knows the numbers and he knows his district. Better than Nate. And that's not a knock. It's a reality. That's why he has been reelected every cycle since 2000 without serious opposition in a rapidly reddening state.
But in all of those things you mentioned, there is no open buying and selling of a good or service like we're accustomed to in a traditional manner.
Setting aside security guards, where we still do, these things do have a history of private sale. So while you might not be accustomed personally, the world and history of the world is a much wider expanse than your personal experience. All these things have migrated to being handled via public utility in the US because of a common nature that they share with health care/insurance. Following their brethern is actually overdue.
P.S.
So bringing that back to health care, I admit there are things that should be administed, fostered, and overseen by the government to make sure no one gets left out, denied care, or just outright screwed, but the things behind the scenes - the training of doctors, nurses, and specialists, the development of drugs and new medical technologies, etc. - should all be done by the free market.
And from my vantage point, some of what the government is trying to do will start encroaching on those things.
Your "vantage point" seems to be from the top of a big pile of irrational fear. Because rationally, rather than emotionally, it really doesn't.
Good analysis, but it's important to keep in mind that TN-5, Jim Cooper's District, is made up mostly of Nashville. Nashville is the second most Democratically reliable city in the state. Jim Cooper may be a "Blue Dog" but his district is pretty reliably Democratic and can call himself whatever he wants and as long as he has a D next to his name he'll probably win.
Your "vantage point" seems to be from the top of a big pile of irrational fear. Because rationally, rather than emotionally, it really doesn't.
Yeah, well, I wasn't alive at the time, but I'm guessing I would have had similar feelings towards Social Security and Medicare when they were developed and signed into law. Good ideas but too much potential to run amok. And you know what, they have been.
Again, they were founded on good ideas but have been horribly mismanaged. That's my fear of what'll happen here. There's always this great new scheme (usually from the left) for a social safety net, and I'm usually for some limited version of it. The problem is between the design and the implementation. Insteady of being a social safety net, we wind up getting a social safety crutch that is horribly administered and a breeding ground for waste, fraud, and abuse.
Tell me how we can avoid what's happened with health care reform what's happened with Social Security and Medicare. You can't prove it. Just like you haven't been able to prove it in the past with all of the programs that are now horrible failures because of an improper and inefficient government role.
In short, don't preach to me about "irrational fears" from my "vantage point" when liberal ideas from the past have turned into crippling albatrosses around the neck of the average American.
Yeah, well, I wasn't alive at the time, but I'm guessing I would have had similar feelings towards Social Security and Medicare when they were developed and signed into law. Good ideas but too much potential to run amok. And you know what, they have been.
Yes, an enormous boon to the citizens of the country and overall well run.
There-in is the rub, you are again letting your emotions (and imagination) run wild rather than evaluating the whole based on actual fact.
Tell me how we can avoid what's happened with health care reform what's happened with Social Security and Medicare. You can't prove it.
Sure you can "prove it" by doing it. It is also been rather done successfully by other countries. You think so little of the US that you think it can't get it's crap together? Maybe you just need to vote for competent canditates (first step would be voting at all)?
Nice American't attitude!
Mule Rider said...
In short, don't preach to me about "irrational fears" from my "vantage point" when liberal ideas from the past have turned into crippling albatrosses around the neck of the average American.
How about thumping you about the head and sholders with "the perfect being the enemy of the good"? Where you mentally enlarging relatively small blemishes to the point you are paralyzed into inaction.
Kinda like you do with voting. You have this naive dream about the non-political politician, which no known human is going to measure up to. Then when that inevitable happens, when everyone fails your test, you throw up your hands and indignantly decry all candidates (that actually run) unworthy of your vote.
A self-made victim is you.
Yeah, well, I wasn't alive at the time, but I'm guessing I would have had similar feelings towards Social Security and Medicare when they were developed and signed into law. Good ideas but too much potential to run amok. And you know what, they have been. ...
In short, don't preach to me about "irrational fears" from my "vantage point" when liberal ideas from the past have turned into crippling albatrosses around the neck of the average American.
...
Tell me how we can avoid what's happened with health care reform what's happened with Social Security and Medicare. You can't prove it.
lol, of course we can't prove it, since you haven't even attempted to show "what's happened" with them.
The idea that, for example, Social Security is looked on by the average American as a "crippling albatross" around their neck is absolutely ludicrous. It has no basis in fact whatsoever, and as such, your argument has no basis in fact.
Take, for example, this poll. When asked to rate their health insurance plans on a scale from 0 - 10, over 50% of Medicare and Medicaid recipients rated their plans a 9 or a 10, compared to 40% for private health insurance plans.
Do you see how I made an assertion and then referenced actual numbers to back up that assertion? Might want to try it some time. Slavish devotion to ideology is not a rational substitute for fact-based reasoning.
I didn't see any logic in anything you said, Dwight. All I saw were ad hominem attacks about how I think with "emotion" and "irrational fears" and throw up my hands claimining victimhood. None of which is true.
What I did ask is for you to explain how/why Social Security and Medicare are so poorly run and why health care reform won't wind up just like them. And you danced around the topic with a ten-foot pole by using the aforementioned attacks.
Persuter,
Are you a fucking retard? Do you not understand the difference between people "liking" the present service they get from it and the FACT that they are poorly run and will face a catastrophic FUNDING CRISIS at some point in the not-so-distant future that will cause them to cumble like a sandcastle. Here comes your facts, asshat!
@ Mule Rider,
The government has been hobbled, every agency really, by years of holding federal wages flat and reducing the size of the government workforce, even as their caseloads grow.
Of course many government agencies are inefficient and ineffective. Every President from Reagan to Bush Jr has taken this Orwellian "in order to make the government more efficient we must reduce the capacity of the government to do work" approach to governing. A bank would become inefficient over time if the same management approach were used. A multi-national corporation and a co-op would as well.
What's frustrating about your argument is that it's self-affirming, cyclical. It's conservatives (and I include Cilnton's people in that categorization) who have advanced the notion that:
1) government is inherently inefficient
and thus
2) it must be made smaller
which in turn
3) makes government more inefficient
If we compensate our government employees properly, stop harmful employee reductions, and quit staffing agencies with political appointments who are ideologically opposed to their agency's mission, you just might find that you'd end up with a more efficient government, capable of all kinds of things -even universal health care.
David, most polling shows Obama's approval higher than the votes he received in most places, that doesn't mean a poll is more inaccurate than other polls.
Nate, this is beautiful in showing how there are really two kinds of conservative Democrats- big government conservatives in generally poor, rural areas, and small government libertarianish Democrats in more upscale, suburban areas.
Nice analysis (as usual)!
However, given what we generally know already, the dynamics in the House are not nearly as big an issue as those in the Senate with regard to support for the public/government option.
Is there some way to aggregate the data and perform an analysis that has implications for the dynamics in the Senate?
Thanks...
Medicare's Looming Crisis
The theme you pick up on in this article, but moreso in others, is that there is no historical precedent for what will happen when Medicare and Social Security become insolvent down the road. Oh, there's plenty of speculation and conjecture, but none of them are pretty, and most of them include prognostications of driving the final stake in the heart of this country's economy.
Sorry to get all gloom-and-doom on you, but this is serious. Of course, maybe you're content that things are running smoothly now, for you and yours, and that 90% of the people are happy with it. I mean, hey, if it causes an economic apocalyspe for the next generation, then so be it, right? It's their problem, right?
Funny y'all don't share that opinion on global warming.
Do you honestly think Mike Ross wants to piss off the party leadership? Wouldn't it be easier for him to get DCCC money if he didn't rock the boat? He knows the numbers and he knows his district.
lol... I wish you knew the numbers as well as Ross does. Check out his financial contribution numbers sometime - he gets far more from health care PACs than the DCCC. Heck, the American Pharmacists' Association and the American Physical Therapy Association alone have given as much since 2000 as the DCCC has. And there's lots of others - the AMA, the American Nurses' Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Health Care Association, the American Dental Association... and I haven't even made it out of the As yet.
Forgive me if this has already been posted, but isn't a lot of this analysis rather missing the point? Even if the public option may poll decently in these districts, the gap in enthusiasm looks rather massive. Turnout is the name of the game, particularly in a mid-term election, and the public against the public option are going to turn out in droves.
What's that old saying? Support "a mile wide and an inch deep"? The important thing here is the depth of the opposition, which is somewhere around Mariana Trench level.
Slavish devotion to ideology is not a rational substitute for fact-based reasoning.
Yeah, just like slavish devotion to logical fallicies isn't a useful tool for developing sound policies and solutions.
Much like you honing in on and citing nothing but the popularity of a program without paying any attention whatsoever to how it is funded or its long-term viability.
Check this, asshole. I love eating at the steakhouse close to where I live. Matter of fact, I'd give my experience there damn near a 10 out of 10 nearly every time I go.
Why, then, don't I go to that steakhouse every night for dinner? I'll tell you why. Eventually, I'd wind up under a mountain of debt and unable to pay for anything else, much less continued trips to the steakhouse. And furthermore, I'd probably put on about 100 pounds and make myself overweight and unhealthy.
I swear, some of you liberals are too myopic to see even the most glaring consequences in the long-run and think about nothing but the "feel good" stories of the present. And you say that we're the ones guided by emotions rather than FACTS??
Come on. Give me a break.
Well, I know Ross' district because I was born/raised there.
There's no love lost for Obama anywhere there. Period.
Here comes your facts, asshat!
Oh good, facts AND gratuitous insults!
The theme you pick up on in this article, but moreso in others, is that there is no historical precedent for what will happen when Medicare and Social Security become insolvent down the road.
:rolleyes: Seriously? A Newsmax article? If this is where you get your news, it at least explains a lot about your ideology.
The reason that Medicare is projected to take up so much money fifty years from now is not because it is mismanaged, but because health care costs are skyrocketing, you git! That's the whole point of health care reform. Welcome to the debate.
Further, at no point does your own cited article say that Social Security or Medicare have been "mismanaged" in any way, much less that they are "horrible failures" as you said.
As usual, you can't find any facts to back yourself up. But the truly laughable part here is the only thing you cited to try to defend yourself showed EXACTLY why health care needs to be reformed! And you, unamazingly, don't even get it. Once again, it's simply this slavish devotion to ideology trumping any hint of rationality - health care costs going up for everyone somehow means Medicare is broken.
:rolleyes: Seriously? A Newsmax article? If this is where you get your news, it at least explains a lot about your ideology.
Dude, that was just the first article I came to that addressed it. I'm not going to hold your hand when all you have to do is go to Google and type in "Social Security Funding crisis" or "Medicare funding crisis" and have plenty of information. These are well-known problems and what's laughable is how you just keep burying your head in the sand about them.
Mule Rider-
Many aspects of health-care R&D and health-care products absolutely require the government to be a principle actor, and to exert some control. An excellent example would be vaccines--not very profitable to research, at least not without considerable government funding, and sometimes a individual mandate to get the vaccine (although, of course, there are exceptions).
Another example would be fundamental research in biochemistry and physiology--corporations make their profit off patentable products & services, so there is little incentive to throw money away on something that will profit their rivals as much as them, aside from the PR benefit of charitable donations. So most of this is done by government labs and academic institutions funded by the government.
All this makes you worry of "what the government is trying to do will start encroaching on" "the things behind the scenes - the training of doctors, nurses, and specialists, the development of drugs and new medical technologies, etc." is a little odd, since government has been a primary and necessary actor all along.
But back to Universal Health Care, I've always had a little trouble understanding conservative opposition, since, as some other commentators have pointed out, we already have universal health care--the ER! What's so wrong with a public fall-back plan? All this amounts to is replacing expensive ER docs and hospital pharmacies with lower-cost primary care physicians and community pharmacies. It it paying a few hundred bucks a year on antihypertensives/lipid modifying agents and office visits to prevent a $40k hospital bill that either bankrupts you, the patient, helps cripple your local hospital, or is paid by the State/Federal gov't, i. e., you, the taxpayer.
So, the public option (with an individual mandate and just a LITTLE bit of responsibility on the part of the patient) will reduce our nation's total cost, while IMPROVING care.
And, at the risk of seeming schoolmarmish, can't we all (on both sides) lay off the shrill tone and gratuitous insults?
As usual, you can't find any facts to back yourself up.
Dude, I don't know any other way to say it. Some of the estimates vary as to when exactly each one starts paying out more than it takes in or when they actually go completely broke, but the dates vary anywhere from the next couple of years (2010-2011) through like 2050. You can find that stated anywhere. It is FACT. A well-know FACT. So don't tell me I'm not bring FACTS to the discussion.
In any event, and I don't know how old you are or what your perception of time is, but something that's going to go belly up and is as big as SS or Medicare are, and will do so anytime between now and the next 40 years is disconcerting to me. It will likely happen in our lifetimes (depending on your age) and it will bring about miserable consequences.
...it's simply this slavish devotion to ideology trumping any hint of rationality...
I feel pretty fair and open-minded but admittedly don't stray too far from my conservative roots, but it's laughable at the very least - a pot-kettle-black moment - for you to talk to me about "slavish devotion to ideology" when your default solution to every single problem is founded in liberal principles with no hint of compromise.
Go ahead and tell me that it's just because they've been "proven" right. I'll be waiting on a snark about "facts" or "reality" having a liberal bias.
Puh-lease!
Dude, that was just the first article I came to that addressed it. I'm not going to hold your hand when all you have to do is go to Google and type in "Social Security Funding crisis" or "Medicare funding crisis" and have plenty of information. These are well-known problems and what's laughable is how you just keep burying your head in the sand about them.
lol, naturally you ignore the complete dismantling of your argument and focus on the single paragraph that says, correctly, that you shouldn't get your news from Newsmax.
You said they were "horrible failures", "crippling albatrosses", and "mismanaged". So far your sole point of evidence is that health care costs are going up, which will cause Medicare to become insolvent decades in the future. This is not a "horrible failure". Nor at any point have you provided the slightest evidence that it is mismanaged because it is government.
Sorry, Mule, but just calling other people "asshats" and "retarded" doesn't make you right. Social Security and Medicare are not horrible failures, you simply want them to be because you know otherwise your political stance makes no sense.
sorry, should be "All this makes your worry of "what the government is trying to do will start encroaching on" "the things behind the scenes - the training of doctors, nurses, and specialists, the development of drugs and new medical technologies, etc." a little odd"
Some of the estimates vary as to when exactly each one starts paying out more than it takes in or when they actually go completely broke, but the dates vary anywhere from the next couple of years (2010-2011) through like 2050. You can find that stated anywhere. It is FACT. A well-know FACT
LOL!
It is a well-known FACT that they will go completely broke! Sometime in the next forty years! We have no idea when! And is this due to mismanagement, like you said? Who knows, who cares?! It must be because it's a government program, right?!
Honestly, that's your position in a nutshell. Take ANYTHING and call it a fact, then insist that somehow it proves your point even though it's obviously not even relevant.
Mule Rider said...
All I saw were ad hominem attacks
September 9, 2009 12:53 PM
(2) minutes later!
Mule Rider said...
Persuter,
Are you a fucking retard?
Here comes your facts, asshat!
September 9, 2009 12:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mule, you haven't lost your passive/aggressive touch, congrats!
take care
This is a fun thread. Hey, Mule.
I remember back in the second day (I did actually engage in service forums in the early 1990s and in blog comments in the middle part of this decade) when I was debating WMD in Iraq with someone and they linked to a Newsmax article. That was esentially the end of our dialogue though I did respond that he might have at least linked to the article that pictured all the garbage that had been found (hilarious) if he was going to use them as his source.
And is this due to mismanagement, like you said? Who knows, who cares?! It must be because it's a government program, right?!
Do you realize how absurd this comeback is? You don't seem to get how simple this is, yet you make it so complex. Follow with me. We can make easy conclusions by simple facts. We know that:
1) Social Security is run by the government.
2) The finances of Social Security are horribly out of whack.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when you have 1) and 2), it means the government has mismanaged the program. They're job is to manage it and make it financially sound. Nobody else has any say over SS but the government. If it's not financially sound, then ipso facto, it has been mismanaged. I don't understand your logic. You're trying to go from point A to point B through C. It does not follow. Plain. And. Simple.
The Newsmax faux pas was an innocent blunder on my part. I don't think I've read more than 2 articles there my entire life. That's what I get, though, for doing a quick search and cutting/pasting the first link I come to that discusses the point I'm trying to make.
I'll take credit for being lazy on that. But it's not an "indictment" on my ideology or logic.
You said they were "horrible failures", "crippling albatrosses", and "mismanaged". So far your sole point of evidence is that health care costs are going up, which will cause Medicare to become insolvent decades in the future. This is not a "horrible failure". Nor at any point have you provided the slightest evidence that it is mismanaged because it is government.
The evidence lies in the simple fact that we will be facing triillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to these programs that far exceed the gross domestic product of this country.
If that's not a sign of mismanagement by the government, then I don't think there's anything I can say that would make you understand the issue or get it through your thick skull.
Mule Rider said...
I'll take credit for being lazy on that. But it's not an "indictment" on my ideology or logic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, your ideology and logic er lack thereof can most definitely stand on its own.
take care
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002013.html
•Social Security faces an unfunded liability of $10.4 trillion.
•Medicare's unfunded liability is $61.6 trillion - six times greater than Social Security's.
•The prescription drug benefit alone faces a funding gap of $16.6 trillion - more than 50 percent greater than Social Security's.
•By 2020, the combined deficits in these programs will consume more than one-fourth of all federal income taxes.
•By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, deficits in the two programs will consume more than half of all federal incomes taxes.
•By 2050, when today's college students will reach retirement age, Social Security and Medicare will require more than three- fourths of all income taxes just to pay benefits currently promised.
Say what you want to, but I'll repeat again. The government has mismanaged these programs. As you can see, they have promised to pay out for more than is anticipated to be coming in. It is an unsustainable pattern.
It doesn't matter what the root causes are in fueling these shortfalls (like changing age demographics for SS or rising health care costs for Medicare), the government's primary role is to ensure that what they are paying out is equivalent or less to what they take in over the long-run.
They're not on a plan that will sustain that over the long run and have shown little/no courage to change the status quo. Until something does change, and as long as we're on course for trillions of dollars of shortfall, then they ("they" being the government) have mismanaged these programs.
If you can't see that, then I have no more business discussing it with you.
Mule Rider said...
If you can't see that, then I have no more business discussing it with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mule, are you, once again, at an impasse!
just wonderin'
take care
Folks, don’t listen to anything Walker says because his wife Missy works for Humana, one of the worst offenders amongst health insurers. He would defend insurers even if they operated “death panels”—oh wait, that’s what they do!
Fifi…
“…then I have no more business discussing it with you.”
Does that mean you are threatening to take your barking elsewhere? For the ten thousandth time?
Fifi…
Social Security would be solvent forever if the high-wage earners were required to pay the same percentage into it as low-wage earners. So your saying that there is a “$10.4 trillion” liability in Social Security is a lie. Therefore we can conclude that all these other points of yours are lies—
That Medicare faces a $61 trillion liability
That Medicare drug coverage faces a $16 trillion liability
That you made $685,000 in the stock market (you already admitted this is a lie)
That you have any humiliation threshold
That you aren’t a yapping little poodle
So let's try to give Mule hypothetical directions to my favorite restaurant:
1) Okay Mule, first get on I-10 West.
Mule: If I stay on I-10, I'll end up in California! Then in the ocean! All I wanted to do is go to a restaurant, and you are trying to drown me!
2) Well you don't stay on I-10 forever Mule, eventually, you take the Harkin road exit, to the North.
Mule: Great, now I'll end up in CANADA! Then the North Pole! I'll freeze to death! Instead of drowning me, you are going to freeze me death! Or I'll be eaten by polar bears! Is that what you want?!?!
3) Okay Mule, stay at home and eat your peanut butter crackers, okay?
The idea that Social Security or Medicare, will go "bankrupt in forty years" is simply patently ridiculous; it is exactly this kind of idiotic projectionist argument, holding the current situation exactly static and assuming nothing changes politically or financially for the next forty years is patently ridiculous. Pretending you know what technologies will be invented and what medicines will be invented in the next forty years is patently ridiculous. Forty years from now, Medicare may be run by AI and robots for the cost of electricity; forty years from now, we may have injectable wireless monitoring systems that bring an ambulance to your door before you know you are ill; forty years from now the healthcare industry may have changed dramatically for the better. In my area (mathematics and computer science) vast improvements have been made in imaging just in the last year, the very idea that anybody on this planet has any idea of where we will be in forty years is laughable.
Just look at the difference between now and 1969. Now multiply those difference by ten, accelerated by Moore's law, massive parallelism in computers, an increasing understanding of genetics that has only just begun, and about ten other game-changing factors, and perhaps you will have some idea of how utterly ridiculous a forty year projection is for anything.
These are dynamic programs, we fix them as we go along. They will be here forty years from now, and a hundred years from now. Twenty five years ago, I bought a house. I've had ten different sources of income since then, but I've always made the mortgage payment on time, and still do. Twenty five years ago I couldn't have told you where all that money was going to come from, but I committed to buying the house and always managed to come up with the payment, rain or shine.
As a nation we are committed to Social Security and Medicare and we will come up with the money, rain or shine.
Does that mean you are threatening to take your barking elsewhere? For the ten thousandth time?
No, dipshit. If anything, I'll stick around just to spite you. What it means is that, based on the points I've made (in short: government administers/manages Medicare and SS, Medicare and SS face a catastrophic funding crisis in the next decade or so and are financially ustable and unsound and in an unsustainable pattern, ergo the government has mismanaged them), and the conlusions he continues to draw versus the ones I draw, there's nothing really left to say. We'd keep coming back to the same circular arguments.
Persuter wants "proof" it's the government is mismanaging those programs and not other, outside factors. I say that it doesn't matter because they are responsible for administering/managing the prgrams and making sure they are financially sound, regardless of outside factors, therefore they are mismanaged. The proof is self-evident.
Here's an example. I take my RV to an oceanside park or beach for a vacation. A hurricane is coming and those of us at the beach are warned to leave or risk devastating consequences. Refusing to leave, I wait it out when I could have easily fired up the RV and headed inland. The hurricane comes. I survive but my RV and all the other belongings I brought with me on the trip are ruined. Had I heeded the warning and gone inland, my RV and other belongings would have been spared and still usable. In retrospect, I should have taken corrective action and spared myself from the hurricane's effects. Persuter's logic, however, neglects my choice to leave the beach and places sole responsibility on the hurricane and not my own actions.
And he's asking me to prove that losing my RV and belongings was the fault of me not leaving the beach rather than on the hurricane. To me, it's simple. I was given warning of impending doom and plenty of chance to avert it. I didn't take it, stayed the course, and was wiped out as a result. Persuter skips past that and goes straight to the hurricane. Yes, ultimately the hurricane was what blew my RV and belongings away. But I had the chance to not let it happen. I didn't. It's my fault. I mismanaged my own safety and security by not getting out of the way of the hurricane.
That analogy shows you which side of "logic" we're each coming down on. I choose to highlight my own (and the government's) choices and decisions as making a difference. Persuter skips them over and goes straight for the outside influences, ignoring choice and its consequences.
Anyway, as long as that's our starting points, we're not going anywhere productive by continuing the conversation.
And don't start on me, Prag. I'll have to show everybody your profile at HuffPo and let them see what an angry and pitiful person you look like.
I didn't see any logic in anything you said, Dwight.
Yes, you do have trouble in the area of rationally assessing [actual] facts. How about try concentrating on answering the question I put in bold? I'll repeat it, please make sure to check original context before answering; So how do you propose this "rule dodging" get addressed?
P.S. Regarding upcoming funding crunch (it becomes cash flow negative in a decade, and overall profit negative a few decades after that). That isn't because it's poorly run. That is because circumstances are changing [decades after inception], so assuming nothing else changes it'll go "broke". It is only a failure if we don't adjust to it. To put it another way, woe is the fool that draws a straight line and accepts it as fait accompli.
The evidence lies in the simple fact that we will be facing triillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to these programs that far exceed the gross domestic product of this country.
You continue to ignore the simple fact that the reason Medicare costs are going up is because of health care. The Newsmax article does not suggest Social Security finances will get out of whack at all - 19% of revenue is about what it takes up now.
The entire point of health care reform is to address "Medicare's looming crisis", which is rising health care costs. There is a massive, unsustainable obligation being put on the American people by health care over the next fifty years, and you simply point to the percentage that the government is supposed to pay for and insist it's evidence of mismanagement. No, it's evidence of a looming health care crisis which we are trying to fix even at this moment.
Mule Rider,
Remember, you're trying to have a debate with people who end every discussion with:
"you're repeating talking points"
or
"you listen to 'Faux News'"
or
"Sarah Palin is dumb"
or
"you're a Freeptard"
It's all part of the historic left wing meltdown we're witnessing nation wide.
Persuter's logic, however, neglects my choice to leave the beach and places sole responsibility on the hurricane and not my own actions.
What?! That is an egregious misrepresentation. Health care reform is "leaving the beach" - it attempts to avert the looming crisis of which you are speaking. I have made this point in every single post, and you either won't or can't read it.
GROG said...
Remember ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GROG pandering to Mule, too funny! You (2) would make a great team. ;)
take care
@GROG,
Thanks for reminding me of that. As much as I've been exposed to it, you'd think I'd know better.
I think one of the funniest ironies to come out of these online blog debates is that to carelessly accuse someone else of using a "talking point" has in and of itself become nothing more than a talking point.
Yes, costs are the issue with Medicare, but with what you are doing, it's not going to address or lower them sufficiently.
That's what you don't get!
The liberal utopian fantasy land DOES NOT EXIST! It never has and never will!
WV: shots - what I need to drink after a few discussions on 538
GROG said...
Mule Rider,
Remember, you're trying to have a debate with people who end every discussion with: ...
ORLY?
Mule Rider said...
see what an angry and pitiful person
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Projection to the nth degree ~ Congrats!
take care
What?! That is an egregious misrepresentation. Health care reform is "leaving the beach" - it attempts to avert the looming crisis of which you are speaking. I have made this point in every single post, and you either won't or can't read it.
I think we view this backwards. I view this as, we're still inland and are thinking of going to the beach, hear reports a hurricane is coming, and go ahead anyway and get right in its path.
Now I agree it's not a perfect system right now and needs plenty of tweaks, but it doesn't need a major overhaul that will land us in the same boat as SS and Medicare...in the path of the hurricane.
Actually, kinda miss the good ole days ;) before cheney/bush :) when conservatives would inject:
but, but, but Carter
but, but, but Clinton
when Nazi/Hitler just would not suffice lol
Good to see Nazi and Hitler makin' a comeback w/the party of No!
ahhh nostalgia, gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling ...
take care
Mr. American't said...
Yes, costs are the issue with Medicare, but with what you are doing, it's not going to address or lower them sufficiently.
That's what you don't get!
You are advocating [prematurely] throwing up metaphorical hands in defeat. Not only does this seal failure it also would result in worse results for failure.
Illogical response to a challenge; Fold and give up.
Good to see Nazi and Hitler makin' a comeback w/the party of No!
Good to see Godwin's Law proven over and over again as irrefutable fact.
I view this as, we're still inland and are thinking of going to the beach, hear reports a hurricane is coming, and go ahead anyway and get right in its path.
Now I agree it's not a perfect system right now and needs plenty of tweaks, but it doesn't need a major overhaul that will land us in the same boat as SS and Medicare...in the path of the hurricane.
:rolleyes: It's YOUR analogy, and you view it differently than how you originally said it?
Your analogy is very telling, by the way. You assume that health care costs rising beyond our control, like a hurricane, are completely unstoppable. That there's just no way for health care not to cripple our economy, there's nothing to be done about it, end of story.
Yes, in that situation, financially, I can see why the responsible thing to do is to refuse to take on obligations that could in any way be affected by health care costs. It's not morally responsible, of course...
You are advocating [prematurely] throwing up metaphorical hands in defeat. Not only does this seal failure it also would result in worse results for failure.
Illogical response to a challenge; Fold and give up.
No, I'm not. Plain. And. Simple. I said there need to be plenty of "tweaks." Just not a major overhaul.
But you continue to willfully ignore that part of what I'm saying. And why is that? Oh, I know, because those "tweaks" differ with your - ahem - slavish ideology, to steal a phrase from Persuter.
So now we're back to the beginning of another circular argument. Which is why there's no point in talking about it further. Because we'll make the same rounds and wind up in the same place again.
Mule Rider said...
blah, blah, blah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mule, we're at an impasse!
take care
I'm NOT advocating throwing up my hands in defeat. There ARE things I'd like to see done that I believe would help expand coverage and contain costs in the long run.
The simple fact of the matter is that you guys - Dwight, Persuter, and the rest of the Left - don't like those ideas. You dismiss them as "voodoo" and "magic" or incapable of working. We believe the same about your plans or think they will be only a temporary fix that will create even bigger problems down the road (like I believe with the stimulus).
But rather than acknowledge we have plans BUT THAT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THEM, you make the false accusation that we want to do nothing and are just throwing our hands up in the air helplessly.
It's easier for you - because you're either intellectually lazy or incompetent - to falsely accuse us and shout us down as having no ideas and being against change than to address the fact that WE DO IN FACT want change and have ideas to improve things and then go on to explain logically why you think they won't work or will be bad ideas in the long run.
@Mule:
Right, mule, you warned us. And we warned you, and everybody has warned each other. So ultimately every single one of us has warnings to avoid movement in any direction whatsoever; and with such a plethora of dire warnings, we are all forced to reject them all and decide from first principles.
And first principles for anybody with empathy for their fellow countrymen say, we do not tolerate people that profit by making other people suffer, by making other people miserable, by making other people choose between death and bankruptcy.
Yet that is who the insurance industry has become in the last forty years, fucking vampires on society sentencing people to misery, suffering and death or bankruptcy in order to boost their profits and bonuses. That is why they must be stopped.
I don't care about any projections. I am a mathematician and statistician; I can change some bogus assumption in their analysis by a tenth of a percent and put SS forty years from now in the black, or in the red, or I'll make it black with red stripes if you want. I know too much to believe any analysis that tries to get past a year or two. So, back to first principles: We don't let the elderly suffer. The world of work advances too fast for them to keep up, inflation and the vagaries of investment and human nature decimate any savings they may have built up, and the net result is that almost all of them hit thier sixties with too little, too late. You cannot change human nature. What you can do is ensure against it; and that is why we have social security. And medicare. Because the libertarian free market ideology utterly failed when it was in effect before these programs existed.
And now, the libertarian free market ideology has failed on another important front; health care, and that must be fixed now too.
But you will never understand any of this, I am sure, because your empathy for your fellow human beings is approximately zero. You care for no one but yourself; you obviously take some perverse joy in the misery of others.
Poor Mule.
I have been working with the 2004 Annenberg (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/) data for most of this year and I thought I would pass along some data regarding healthcare opinions from the 4th Arkansas congressional district.
In the 2004 Annenberg Survey, respondents from each county in the Arkansas 4th district were sampled for various political issue opinions. 193 respondents from the Arkansas 4th congressional district were asked, "Providing health insurance for people who do not already have it - should the federal government spend more on in, the same as now, less, or no money at all?" question# cCC02
Of those who responded, 7.8% said none; 5.9% said less; 7.8% said the same as now; 78.4% said more. While this question does not specify a "public option" it certainly addresses publicly (government) funded health insurance opinions and cuts down on possible error by sampling from the population of interest directly.
It's easier for you - because you're either intellectually lazy or incompetent - to falsely accuse us and shout us down as having no ideas and being against change than to address the fact that WE DO IN FACT want change and have ideas to improve things and then go on to explain logically why you think they won't work or will be bad ideas in the long run.
Then why not answer the bold question? Because without an actual answer I get the distinct impression your "ideas" are akin to magical pixie dust. Sprinkle a little on and the costs go down.
There ARE things I'd like to see done that I believe would help expand coverage and contain costs in the long run.
But reject going anywhere near proven methods because of an irrational fears (yes they are irrational ... and pointing out that it is irrational is not an ad hominen, as much as you'd like it to be )
But you will never understand any of this, I am sure, because your empathy for your fellow human beings is approximately zero.
You have zero basis to make such a false statement about me. Follow me around for a year or two and see who I am and what I'm about. You'd be surprised. I'd go into a long defense of myself, illustrating all of the compassion and care I've shown others by donating untold hours, money, and energy making sure others who were less fortunate got at least a glimpse of what it was like to be fortunate and blessed and in my shoes (even though I'm by no means living large), but I prefer to keep an air of humility about me. We'd be so lucky, as a society, if you gave of yourself just half of what I do. Now that is a FACT.
You care for no one but yourself; you obviously take some perverse joy in the misery of others.
Utterly and patently false. Not wanting the government attached at my hip for every decision I make from cradle to grave is no indictment on my empathy for others. You are a sick, twisted soul, and it is you who gets a perverse joy out of making a relentless string of heartless and soulless comments that are of absolutely zero value to a discussion.
May God have mercy on you.
All of this is great except for 2 things.
1. People have no idea what the public option is
2. I do not trust DailyKos polling.
Research 2000 is a reputable pollster, but they know how this works. They know how to pick a sample and ask the questions that will produce the answers that their client will love. It generally skews left...by design.
That said, they have Obama approval at 52%, which is within the polling norm.
Given that people do not really know what the public option really is, you have to go with support for the health plan in Congress overall.
AP has support at 34% and opposition at 49%.
It is hard to see how this result would improve in conservative leaning Blue Dog districts.
Support for the Congressional plan is probably less than 30%.
@Nate
You've previously pointed out the "the public option" does not even convey a uniform meaning.
Moreover, I just heard the Majority Whip say today (CSPAN) that there are 5 version of "the public option" (4 in the House and one in the Senate).
At most the polling question do you support "public option" is probably just a surrogate for do you support the Pres., are you a Democratic, do you support your Representative.
Public opinion can seldom make any bill happen; although it can make a bill fail.
Various people keep saying it's the gov't's responsibility to keep SocSec/Medicare solvent, but in this country gov't is still of the people, by the people, and [sometimes] for the people. There are possible fixes, like raising the retirement age, or removing the payroll cap, or reducing benefits. But all of these are now recipes for electoral defeat. It seems to me that all this railing against "the government" misses the point--in a democracy, ultimate responsibility lies at the feet of the people.
It's a depressing thought, but sometimes I almost think that Americans aren't really deserving of America anymore.
Man, I love my country but goddamn if I don't sometimes hate the people who inhabit it.
Fifi…
Here’s my HuffPost profile, which you seem so interested in.
Here’s your profile.
Fair is fair…
:o) :o) :o)
@Petronicus,
Great points. You may not believe it, but I get exactly what you're saying.
It comes down to the will of the people to govern themselves. And I agree that I'm not sure the people have the will to do what needs to be done.
That's funny, Prag.
Fifi…
Well, at least I got you to answer when addressed as “Fifi”, so I guess my work today is done.
I'm NOT advocating throwing up my hands in defeat. There ARE things I'd like to see done that I believe would help expand coverage and contain costs in the long run.
So wait, now you think we should head for the beach? Twenty minutes ago the health care costs were an inevitable hurricane that would destroy Social Security and Medicare, and the best thing we could do is not go to the beach. Sorry, buddy - if Obama can't go to the beach, you durn sure can't.
@jkd,
I think the term "public option" more so invokes an opinion of are you in favor of a large central government or are in favor of a limited central government. This is still very much a right of center country which shows up in the polling despite a still fairly popular leftist president.
So wait, now you think we should head for the beach? Twenty minutes ago the health care costs were an inevitable hurricane that would destroy Social Security and Medicare, and the best thing we could do is not go to the beach. Sorry, buddy - if Obama can't go to the beach, you durn sure can't.
Uh, no, what I'm proposing is to still go somewhere on vacation but not to the beach, figuratively speaking.
GROG said...
@jkd,
I think the term "public option" more so invokes an opinion of are you in favor of a large central government or are in favor of a limited central government. This is still very much a right of center country which shows up in the polling despite a still fairly popular leftist president.
Methinks the "country" is quite the blowhard about how far "right" they are, when push comes to shove. It sounds sexy to a whole lot of people, to bluster about how do-it-themselves they are and preaching to others about stop using government as a crutch. But deep down there is a lot of Joe The Plumber going on where his family was helped through a tough patch with welfare. But that was somehow different. D'Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.
P.S. But that doesn't even compare to the magnitude of the empty, hot air about how "left" Obama is.
I'm done with this thread. Wasted too much time already, and there's no use wasting more drowing in a sea of illogical statements, circular reasoning, projected stereotypes, false accusations, and in too many cases outright lies and smears.
Feel free to deride me and my name in the wake of my leaving, but if you're looking for a response from me on anything else, you're not going to get it, so don't waste keystrokes asking it.
Just thought I'd share to spare you time.
Prag, joined HP May 2008 also. My nick is stokely, if anyone cares and if no one cares it's still stokely.
As Casey Stengel would say, you can look it up or not.
HP is user unfriendly, have to laugh when conservatives complain about censorship when about 1/3 of my HP posts have ended up in the time/warp continuum worm hole never to be seen again.
I digress ...
btw, my illusion of Fifi has been shattered forever! ;)
Uh, no, what I'm proposing is to still go somewhere on vacation but not to the beach, figuratively speaking.
No, what you are doing is avoiding answering my question. Because, I believe, you got nuttin' but naive hopes and dreams for how you wished the world worked. Literally and figuratively.
I'm done with this thread.
... and there you go with your tail between your legs, hoping nobody notices you are running.
P.S. At least you give more of an announcement of it than Bart DePalma and Bradford. But I suspect that is just because you lack their ability and intent of deciet.
BDP knows when he has been defeated daily and quietly leaves, whereas Mule is defeated before he shows up and yet, he keeps going and going and going.
and his clinical psychological diagnosis has been discussed ad nauseam, as there have been so many opportunities. ;)
The continuing adventures of ...
carry on
When Mule writes his autobiography, hopefully he will leave out the chapter re: 538.
... and there you go with your tail between your legs, hoping nobody notices you are running.
@Dwight,
I love how you just couldn't stand throwing around the tough talk after I said I was leaving. Pretty easy to sound big and bad when you think I'm not gonna come back and drop a reply. What a crock of shit, and you know it. I'm not running for you or anybody else, but I do have sense enough to enough that if you don't say "when" at some point, this back-and-forth drivel and nonsense would go on forever.
Because, I believe, you got nuttin' but naive hopes and dreams for how you wished the world worked. Literally and figuratively.
Oh my God, if that doesn't describe damn near every plan of the Left. They're all built on a foundation of naive hopes and dreams and how they wished the world worked, not anything in reality. I couldn't have said it better, so thanks for putting it into perspective just how clueless you are and what your ideas are based on.
Tell you what. I've offered this before, and to date, I've only got one taker. You like to talk shit, so I'm going to give you the opportunity to do it to my face. Not necessarily challenging you to a wild west, high noon showdown, but I'd like to see if you can say what you do with such boldness and mocking tones if you couldn't hide behind the anonymity of the internet. Davy has agreed to meet me. So how 'bout you?
Contact me at boner723@gmail.com if you got the balls. Tell me how/when we can meet up sometime and discuss our differences face-to-face. Otherwise, you're the chicken shit pussy who is running and won't come out of the shadows to face me.
The ball's in your court. No more shit needs to be talked. Either lighten your tone, agree to meet me, or shut the **** up.
and going and going ...
Pretty easy to sound big and bad when you think I'm not gonna come back and drop a reply.
Funny, I had already asked the question 2 times before and I had already stated I thought you were dodging...which you still are. Besides when does you saying you are leaving actually reliably predict that you don't continue to post?
Contact me at boner723@gmail.com if you got the balls. Tell me how/when we can meet up sometime and discuss our differences face-to-face. Otherwise, you're the chicken shit pussy who is running and won't come out of the shadows to face me.
The ball's in your court. No more shit needs to be talked. Either lighten your tone, agree to meet me, or shut the **** up.
LOL, boner723??? That's even funnier than you swinging your say-it-to-my-face-or-it-doesn't-count-dick. See, I'm talking logic and reasoning. Logic and reasoning doesn't need to punch you in the face to "count".
You lose.
I thought a certain somebody was leaving.
I wish I could make money on every promise of his to leave that he fails to follow through on…
Then I’d buy health insurance for all!
Uh, no, what I'm proposing is to still go somewhere on vacation but not to the beach
No, you're saying government needs to confront the hurricane of health care costs which is sinking the Medicare boat - even as you point to the sinking Medicare boat as proof that government can't fix it.
Honestly, Mule - I'm sure there's someone somewhere who can make a coherent point on your side, but you're not him.
Dwight said:
But that doesn't even compare to the magnitude of the empty, hot air about how "left" Obama is.
You don't think Obama is a leftist, Dwight?
Obama has proposed radical changes in American foreign policy, environmental policy, education, the tax code, and of course health care.
And none of his proposed polices have majority support among voters.
Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007. He has had liberal views on gun control, abortion, and the death penalty. He has shown no fiscal responsibility whatsoever. He has had radical ties to the likes of William Ayers and Rev Wright. He has appointed tax cheats and had "czars" resign in shame. He's presided over the largest expansion on government in our history.
Where is the "empty, hot air about how left Obama is"?
John Peterson is not the congressman from Pa-5, it's Glenn Thompson. Are your other congressman correct?
Where is the "empty, hot air about how left Obama is"?
Your post provides a pretty good rundown of many common ones. :) I'd type out a detailed breakdown of how they are but really why break with my hard and fast tradition of just saying "you're repeating talking points"?
Right? :^)
P.S. The real reason for not giving a breakdown right now is I'd rather give a more detailed treatment and don't have time at the moment to do it justice. Perhaps later. If I don't post it in this thread in the next day or two please remind me.
Fair enough. Just don't repeat any "leftwing talking points". :)
You don't think Obama is a leftist, Dwight?
Obama has proposed radical changes in American foreign policy, environmental policy, education, the tax code, and of course health care.
This is a total straw man compared to what Dwight said. Is he left-wing? Yes. Is he a radical black militant communist? No.
@GROG:
The majority of voters DO support health care reform, and when the Obama supported plan is described and they ask if they support THAT, the majority of voters DO support Obama's policy on health care.
Those that say they do not support "Obama's Approach to Health Care Reform" and say they DO support "Health Care Reform" are quite obviously reacting to the name "Obama".
When Obama's educational policies are outlined without reference to Obama, the majority of people support those policies too.
And "radical ties," ha! What an infantile comedian you are. What's next, poopy diaper jokes?
Seems like another poll should be conducted. If you just straight up say "Do you support the public option", I would venture to guess that they won't because they view it (erroneously) as gov't takeover.
I need this data in XML or a text file for import into a database. Is this available in a consumable version?
As MM above said
I need this data in XML or a text file for import into a database. Is this available in a consumable version?
As an organizer I could us this to mobilize volunteers to gains support from key CA districts.
@Pragmatus
The Puppy Bomb. Hilarious.
Perhaps even more interesting than how these numbers look for Blue Dogs in the House is how they might look for a certain senator from Montana. You'd think 48% support for a public option might make him rething things.
I think you're going to want to update your model Nate. Research 2000 just released a poll showing support for the public option in Arkansas 55-38, a larger amount than your model predicts for all Arkansas districts.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
The Public Option is just that "an option". If you don't want it don't choose it. It's really simple. The Public Option is NOT free. You must pay premiums just as Medicare Part B requires. It is shameful that we need free clinics around the country and that 83% of people who use these clinics are employed. I remember this same ranker over Medicare. Most seniors like Medicare and would not want to get rid of it.
Post a Comment